Blackbird Tech LLC v. TomTom, Inc.
Unknown- Docket:
- 1:16-cv-00688
- Filed:
- 2016-08-04
The outcome of this case is not specified in the narrative, but it was likely influenced by parallel PTAB proceedings.
Defendant
1 case as defendant.
TomTom N.V. is a Dutch multinational location technology specialist founded in 1991 as Palmtop Software. Headquartered in Amsterdam, Netherlands, the company is publicly traded on the Euronext Amsterdam exchange under the ticker TOM2. As of early 2026, TomTom employed approximately 3,300 people and had a trailing twelve-month revenue of around $630 million. The company that became famous for personal navigation devices now focuses primarily on its location technology and software businesses.
TomTom operates through two main segments: Location Technology and Consumer. The company develops and sells highly accurate digital maps, real-time traffic information, and navigation software to automotive and enterprise clients, including solutions for automated driving and fleet management. Its consumer business offers portable navigation devices (PNDs) like the TomTom GO series, as well as mobile navigation applications such as TomTom GO Navigator and AmiGO. The company also provides a suite of APIs and SDKs for developers to integrate TomTom's mapping and location services into their own applications.
As a patent litigant, TomTom is an operating company that has defended itself against patent assertions. The company's record shows it as a defendant in one tracked U.S. patent case and as a plaintiff in none. This defensive posture is typical for a technology company focused on product development rather than patent monetization.
The single tracked case, Blackbird Tech LLC v. TomTom, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2016. The plaintiff, Blackbird Tech LLC, is known as a non-practicing entity (NPE) whose business model consists of acquiring patents and monetizing them through litigation against operating companies. The suit against TomTom is consistent with this pattern of NPEs targeting established technology firms.
The outcome of this case is not specified in the narrative, but it was likely influenced by parallel PTAB proceedings.